"Test everything; retain what is good.” (1 Thes 5:21) A laywoman expresses concerns about issues in the Roman Catholic Church to foster positive dialogue by posing and exploring questions.
Please remember that Canon Law says it is not only a right but a duty to question the church. Also, Canon Law provides an over-riding power to the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). By this, Canon Law says that if the sensus fidelium (collective of the faithful) reject a law, it is not valid.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Reflections on Mary's "yes"...

New Year’s Day brings us a Marian Feast Day, a day upon which many
clergy will extol the virtues of Mary’s “yes.”Calling Mary’s response a “yes” implies there was a question with the
possibility of answering “no.”But, did
Mary really have a choice?

In Luke’s gospel the angel Gabriel didn’t seem to ask Mary a question
when he announced her impending pregnancy.He didn’t say, “Mary, what do you think about becoming pregnant before
you get married?”Or, “Mary, would you
be willing to have the Holy Spirit impregnate you even though this could
totally screw up the partially transacted business deal of your marriage to
Joseph and get you stoned to death?”He
just said it was going to happen and that she shouldn’t worry.Gabriel’s statements were declarative not interrogative.

In Matthew’s gospel, the announcement didn’t even come to Mary; it came
to Joseph - who
according to Mosaic Law did have options…quietly end the betrothal, accuse
Mary of being damaged goods or complete the betrothal process and marry her,
likely for a lower bride price. Mary’s religious,
social and legal status largely depended upon what Joseph said and did, not
what she said or did.

The non-canonical gospel of James offers some insight into Mary’s early
life, telling us Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim, donated her to be a temple
virgin when she was about three years old.If I had done similarly with any of my daughters, I would probably be in
prison for child neglect or human trafficking. However, the church sings the praises of Anna
and Joachim, calling them saints.

What is the likelihood a child donated at and conditioned since three
possesses sufficient critical thinking skills to realize, assess and exercise
any of her options, limited and unpalatable as they may be?

Some might dismiss this with a hand-wave, saying that those were
different times - and they were. Children and women were considered property
with zero to few rights.They had very
little legal voice to oppose authority. Would she have even thought “no” was a
possible response?

According to Luke’s infancy narrative, Mary’s response to Gabriel’s
announcement was that things should be done unto her according to Gabriel’s
word.That seems predictable based upon
her childhood experiences…pretty ho-hum given the context, some might say.Personally, I would be more amazed if she had
said, “Gabe, Thanks, but no.”Please
note, I’ve not found saying “no thanks” to God to be a consistently reliable technique
for God sparing me from things I do not want to endure.So even if Mary said “Gabe…not gonna lie on
this one…not loving your tidings…please tell the Lord to favor someone else”
would that have prevented her pregnancy according to her wishes?

More interesting to me than Mary’s “yes” was her referring to herself
as a “handmaiden of the Lord.”In
ancient Hebrew culture, a handmaiden’s married female owner could order the
handmaiden to sleep with her husband to conceive a child on her behalf if the
wife was unable to conceive.Sarah
ordering her handmaiden, Haggar, to sleep with Abraham to bear a child is such
an example.

The husband could not order the handmaiden to be sexual proxy for his
wife; only the wife could do this.Therefore, I wonder if Mary carried feminine rather than masculine
imagery of God…in that her response was to consider herself conceiving a child
as proxy for God…something culturally she would only do for her female owner?

We actually know almost no facts about Mary.Over the years, myths evolved adding details
based upon supposition and imagination rather than fact.Eventually some of the details within those
myths were declared infallible doctrine by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII - her
being conceived immaculately/free from original sin, and her being assumed into
heaven - sucked up by a Holy Hoover vacuum cleaner into heaven rather than taking
the standard route by dying.As an aside,
her perpetual virginity has never been declared infallible doctrine, although it
is doctrine.

Though we know little about Mary, we know a little more about Mosaic Law
and the status of women at the time.In
some respects it offered women a degree of financial security not offered in
other cultures at the time.But if you
read the various details regarding women’s virginity and legal implications for
tampering with it, you see that women get a pretty raw deal.They are property; they are objects upon
which to be acted; their punishments are more severe, etc…The list of marginalizing aspects is long.

Fast forward through history to today and we see that though some women
have progressed in financial and physical security, discriminatory and
marginalizing attitudes ingrained over thousands of years are difficult to shed.Attitudes depicting women as dependent
objects lead to practices that make them dependent objects.For example, many girls around the globe
prostitute themselves just to get a secondary or university education because
their families believe formal education for girls is frivolous - females are to depend upon their fathers until they depend upon a husband.Practices like this have led to a
disproportionately large percentage of adults in poverty being women.I have read statistics as high as 70% of
impoverished adults are women.

Pope Francis says he’s an advocate for both the poor and women.A true advocate for the poor must be an
advocate for women because they are to a large extent “the poor.”A sincere advocate for the poor would also try
to help alter the circumstances leading to poverty.With women, this includes offering education
and eradicating attitudes and practices defining women as dependent upon
men.This includes eradicating attitudes
and practices that artificially limit women’s chances based upon gender.

Unfortunately, I have not yet heard Pope Francis acknowledge the
connection between poverty and the marginalization of women.With his supporting institutionalized sexist
practices in the church that emerge from its gender-based ideology while at the
same time declaring feminists’ efforts at empowering women as “demonic
gender-based ideology”, he seems primarily to reinforce regressive attitudes
about women – attitudes that jeopardize their financial and physical security –
attitudes that place more women in poverty.Furthermore, Francis can’t seem to
speak about women without sexist drivel and/or sexist jokes escaping from his
mouth.It makes his statements about
valuing women ring hollow.Meanwhile,
his actions to support his words take a long time to occur and have been underwhelming
when they finally do – to the point that they seem largely to be token gestures.

Even in a developed nation with great progress towards women’s
empowerment, I am experiencing the downstream effect of the rock-star popular
Francis repeatedly making sexist jokes.For example, Christmas Eve Mass the priest told us the highest ministry
a woman could have was to make cookies for a priest…har-dee-har-har.If an executive made such a sexist comment at
my secular job, the executive would be reprimanded or possibly fired depending
upon severity.But there are few people
willing to go against the grain and call Francis out for his sexist
statements.This gives a sense of
normalcy or invincibility to downstream clergy.They can make similar sexist comments without fear of repercussions.This also works against empowering women and
ultimately increases their poverty.

Another area causing severe poverty ties to women’s reproductive health
– an area where the church increasingly tries to eliminate women’s options,
making “yes” the only “answer” regarding conceiving children.Perhaps
this explains or mirrors the clergy’s fixation with Mary’s non-optional “yes.” Is giving women actual options truly something to fear to the point of restricting them?

Rather than prattle on about Mary and her “yes,” I ask Francis and the
clergy to shed the scales from their eyes that blind them from seeing the role
church hierarchy’s centuries of gender-based ideology plays in determining
women’s economic options.I ask them to
stop the disparagement of feminism and feminist theology that empower women by
helping them actually address the causes of poverty via developing self-confidence
and independence.Such theology is not afraid to be surprised by what the Holy Spirit asks women to do as it places no limitations around what the Holy Spirit can or will do. When I see marked
progress in these areas, then I will believe that the rock-star pope is a
sincere advocate for women and consequently the vast majority of the poor.

I acknowledge Francis has done some heart-warming gestures in support of giving comfort to the poor. But, when is he going to address the core issues causing so many women to live with their children in poverty?

About Me

I am a single mother of three who from the eyes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy is in full communion with the Church. But I question if any woman is capable of being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church due to clericalism, sexism, and the marginalization, and emotional abuse of women.
I hold a master degree in theology from Loyola (Master of Pastoral Studies, M.P.S.). I am not employed by the Catholic Church but rather am an executive consultant.
Some ask if I want to be a priest. We are baptized priest, prophet and king. I feel I am more called to exercise my prophetic voice than a priestly one.
(Artwork supplied courtesy of one of my daughters.)